Director Michael Winterbottom really has a thing for
Thomas Hardy. He directed Jude, an interpretation of Hardy's "Jude
the Obscure", and then followed up four years later with The Claim, another
Hardy story ("The Mayor of Casterbridge") re-imagined in an American
mining town in the 19th century. They are both good films, and they
are both faithful to the original stories, to the extent that any
long and complex novel can be adequately represented in a two hour
screenplay.

These interpretations have
earned Winterbottom a lot of respect in literary circles and among
those who love filmed literature, but are not going to be his ticket
to wealth and fame, because the number of ticket buyers in those
literary groups is small indeed. Jude grossed only $405,000 in the
vast United States market, and The Claim grossed an uncannily
similar $404,000.

Of course, these novels weren't doing a lot for
Thomas Hardy either. Many of his works were unpopular with the
critics of his time, and Jude the Obscure was the least popular of
all. A small, discriminating group of reviewers praised it, but in
general it was panned so harshly and so vituperatively that Hardy
turned to poetry and never wrote another novel, despite living another
three decades.

If it was difficult for 19th century critics to
endure Hardy, it is far more difficult for 21st century readers. In essence, he brought the grand themes of Greek tragedy to
Victorian Dorsetshire, yet neither Greek Tragedy nor Victorian rurals
are among today's most popular or most easily understood literary
subjects. It was Hardy's belief that novels should be bigger than life - more
eloquent, more complicated, more emotional, more sensational, more melodramatic. Above
all, Hardy's vision of the novel required the action to be more connected
and neater than life. The details and characters not only needed to
be neatly intertwined, but all that twine had to get tied up into a
neat little ball at the end, in order to offer the kind of closure
rarely offered in real life stories.
As a result of his now dated vision of the nature of a novel, Hardy seems
old-fashioned to us for many
reasons: his characters often speak in
archaic provincial dialects, his plotting seems too implausible
even by lax 19th century standards, and his
themes seem too grand in scope and frankly just too damned
depressing for the humble lives he portrays.

The film version of Jude is saddled with all that
baggage. Our hero is a humble worker who studies Latin and Greek on
his own because he wants to make something of himself. He amasses
some impressive classical scholarship but the class system holds him
back, and the great English Universities will not even give him a
chance. He unwisely marries the first woman who pays attention to
him, and this marriage haunts him the rest of his life. He then
falls in love with his brilliant cousin and has two children with
her while he is still technically married to his first wife. Society
refuses to accept the relationship of the cousins, and this leads to
tragedy after tragedy. Imagine the worst things that can happen to a
man, and the things you imagine will probably happen to poor Jude
eventually.

My very short version of all this is that the
movie is very good but very depressing. I mean this is a real
bummer. It will absolutely test the amount of tragedy you can
endure. Without spoiling the plot for you, I can't even hint as to
exactly how depressing it is, but take my word for it that if you
don't like that kind of movie, this is absolutely not for you. You
have been warned.

(The movie actually has a happy ending compared to
the original book, since the screenplay stopped before Jude's own
wretched death and wake! But tragedy lovers can take heart in
knowing that the movie's characters can expect no better fortune in
their later lives! If you want to get the full "spoiler" treatment,
you can read the entire book online for free. See the link below
under "miscellaneous.")

I will speak now with the people who do like these
sorts of serious literary adaptations. Someday you will want to have
this film in your collection, because it is a good adaptation, it is
performed beautifully, and the cinematography is exquisite. However
... there is no Region 1 DVD, and you do NOT want the current Region
2 DVD. The best thing about this film is its visual appeal - great
locations photographed magnificently to recreate the feel of 19th
century Wessex. Unfortunately,
this DVD only includes a full screen version of the film in a 4:3 TV
aspect ratio. If it were a full 35mm negative version, I would not
complain, but this is a pan 'n scan version with the sides of heads
cut off in two-shots, and other similar problems. I would like to
own a properly mastered widescreen anamorphic DVD of this film, but
I don't expect one to be available soon simply because there is no
great economic demand for it. Today's DVD producers have plenty of
profitable projects backlogged, and there is no urgent reason to
interrupt those plans to work on a film which grossed $400,000, and
is not likely to perform much better on DVD. If anyone does do it,
it will have to be a labor of love with a minimal expectation of
financial reward, unless it could be marketed based on the full
frontal nudity from a young and ripe Kate Winslet.

Sigh. The bottom line is that Jude is a worthwhile
"small audience" movie that I am simply not recommending for anyone at
this time.

DVD INFO

There is no Region 1 DVD
currently in print (used info to far left). The
Region 2 DVD is not worth owning, it has no features except the
original theatrical trailer, and the transfer is a pan 'n scan version
in 4:3 aspect ratio. The link to the near left goes to the book upon
which the film is based. (The book is also available free online. See
link below)

NUDITY REPORT

Kate Winslet does full frontal nudity
before a sex scene with Christopher Eccleston.

Eccleston shows his bum in the actual sex
scene.

Rachel Griffiths shows her breasts in a
post-sex cuddle with Eccleston.

The
Critics Vote ...

Super-panel consensus out of four stars:
three and a quarter
stars. James Berardinelli 3.5/4, Roger Ebert 3/4, BBC 4/5.
Berardinelli placed it on his year end top ten list.

The meaning of the IMDb
score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics,
or a C- from our system.
Films rated below five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one
and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is.

My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but
will be considered excellent by genre fans, while
C- indicates that it we found it to
be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for
fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is
recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C-
that often, because we like movies and we think that most of
them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know
that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below
C-.

Based on this description, it's
a C+, a very well made film for a limited
audience. The existing DVD
is not worth owning, but a good one would be.